Two lines in MN? Possibly..........

[kingfisher1]

I hope this passes:

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S763110.shtml?cat=89

[JohnWester]

another b.s. proposal by our legislatures... did anyone else miss the "$10 fee" part?  What a joke.  If they want to allow 2 lines, then allow it... don't add more BS fees.

Anyone want to bet that next year the optional walleye stamp becomes a mandatory $10 too?

[Woody]

I read this the other day at the Brainerd Dispatch site.  I was all for it up until I seen they wanted to charge extra.    that! That's $10.00 extra that I can spend elsewhere, like Cabelas! 

[JCAMERON]

I'm not crazy about that! I only occasionally fish two lines when ice fishing. I think I would rarely be using two lines in open water.

[Bobby Bass]

I hope this passes:

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S763110.shtml?cat=89

Why?

[kingfisher1]

I hope this passes:

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S763110.shtml?cat=89

Why?

States around us allow multiple lines during open water, why not MN?  You can only keep so many fish anyway, so why not be able to use another rod to try to figure out what they're biting on.  We can have two lines in the water during the winter, why not during the summer? 

[JohnWester]

States around us allow multiple lines during open water, why not MN?  You can only keep so many fish anyway, so why not be able to use another rod to try to figure out what they're biting on.  We can have two lines in the water during the winter, why not during the summer? 

Ahh see kingfisher1 ... you are not thinking like a politician here... if this passes, it'll be an extra $10 for a two line stamp... do you really think winter or summer will matter?  it'll be $10 for two lines. period.

let's just be thankfully for what we have, 2 lines in the winter when you are sitting in the sleeper house... 2 rattle reels down.  or dead sticking one and jigging the other.

[kingfisher1]

while I do enjoy using two lines in the winter, I do not think like a politician.  I do not see my success rate go up any higher in winter due to useing two lines, so I don't see the problem in being able to use one during open water.  I don't agree with the $10 fee, but would be willing to pay it.

[Auggie]

You are sure willing to pay alot of fees. Everything you talk about it doesn't seem to bother you.

[Cody Gruchow]

all though i may not like paying the fees i will, i would love to use 2 lines when lets say catfishing for example and use 2 different baits and see which one is hotter. i pay fees anyways so i wont have a problem paying this one or the walleye stamp, do i think they make it maditory(sp) i hope not same goes for the walleye stamp. i buy a trout stamp and i hardly ever fish for trout and i have them mail me the actual stamp also which is like 12 dollars i think.

[letgofishing]

I always 1 line in winter not need 2 lines
that's stupids......
For open water I prefer 1 line in Minnesota....
2 lines are Cheat!!!! No fun!!!!
 

[kingfisher1]

all though i may not like paying the fees i will, i would love to use 2 lines when lets say catfishing for example and use 2 different baits and see which one is hotter. i pay fees anyways so i wont have a problem paying this one or the walleye stamp, do i think they make it maditory(sp) i hope not same goes for the walleye stamp. i buy a trout stamp and i hardly ever fish for trout and i have them mail me the actual stamp also which is like 12 dollars i think.

well said.  I have to agree with you 100%.  I hardly ever trout fish, making it out maybe a handfull of times each year, yet I have no problem paying for a trout stamp.  Is paying a little extra for a "stamp" to use an extra line or a walleye stamp any different than all the extra fees you have to pay to go duck hunting or pheasent hunting?  You need your small game license, plus both fedreal and state waterfowl stamps and a peasent stamp to hunt for them.  No different in my mind.  I personally have no problem paying it for something I would like to take advantage of.

[finch]

the last two years I have purchased a sportsman license in MN.  the fishing side of it definitely gets used more than hunting.  I have also bought tags for deer that I didn't even get to go hunt.  this will continue until I can get more time to spend outdoors.  why?  because it keeps the ball rolling.  sure I'm out 30 bucks, but at least the state gets their cut.

[kingfisher1]

Last fall I bought a small game license, both waterfowl stamps, and a pheasent stamp to go chase ducks once and pheasents twice.  Am I going to complain about having to pay all that money to barely use it?  nope.  Are you going to complain if you buy a license and only go fishing once?  I bet not!

[stevejedlenski]

i think its dumb that it would cost a fee, however how often would you actually use 2 lines in open water, usually only trolling or when your sitting in one spot. most open water anglers are constantly casting and on the move and another line would just be a hastle and get in the way. just think as soon as you cast you get a bite and so you catch that fish and then have to un-snag your lure from the grass or rocks... i dont think i would use a second line much but i would be nice at some times. i dont think paying $10 for it would be worth it, or $1 at that. now ice angling on the otherhand 2 lines is almost a necessity. imo

[Auggie]

So $30 for my sports mans individual license, $15 for state duck and pheasant stamp(which were just raised $2.50 each because some money wasting politician couldn't keep their hands out of the pot already) another $20 for extra line and a walleye stamp. Maybe we should just add a panfish, pike, catfish, muskie, bass and what the hell, how about a bullhead stamp to round it all off at $10 each. See where I am going. Where do you stop? The money I spend to buy stamps and license now is almost as much as it cost me to buy a Non Resident SD angling license for the year. I am sick of fees charging me to utilize a resource that I have spent more time preserving than most of these politicians could even think about. All the potential fees will drive me to spend my dollars elsewhere if it keeps up.

[Woody]

Auggie...how dare you?!!! You forgot carp. 

[Auggie]

  Toss on another $10.

[Woody]

Thank you.   

[kingfisher1]

While you make great points Auggie, These are optional fees, and it's up to you to pay them or not.  They aren't mandatory and you don't have to pay if you choose not to.  I personally don't see a problem with it.  Inmy opinion, it's no different than chasing ducks or geese. 

[Auggie]

While you make great points Auggie, These are optional fees, and it's up to you to pay them or not.  They aren't mandatory and you don't have to pay if you choose not to.  I personally don't see a problem with it.  Inmy opinion, it's no different than chasing ducks or geese. 

It is optional right now. How long will that last? It is quite different than ducks and geese. They are a federally regulated migratory bird. Not only do they need help in Mn but every stop along the way from nesting ground to wintering ground.

[kingfisher1]

What I meant, Auggie, by saying that it's like chasing ducks and geese is that you have to pay extra fees to chase them.  Federally regulated or not, you still have to pay extra fees.  I have no idea how long these fees will be optional, but for now you don't have to pay these extra fees if you don't want to.

[Auggie]

That's right, for now. But how long? You let them have one (voluntarily) and then how long till they are shoving another down our throat. Like I said before, I will be spending my dollars elsewhere if it keeps up. I am also done trying to beat the concept of government regulation into your head. You have obviously shown it is of no concern to you, by your past posts here, and elsewhere to open up your pocket and household to more regulation and taxation.

[kingfisher1]

That's right, for now. But how long? You let them have one (voluntarily) and then how long till they are shoving another down our throat. Like I said before, I will be spending my dollars elsewhere if it keeps up. I am also done trying to beat the concept of government regulation into your head. You have obviously shown it is of no concern to you, by your past posts here, and elsewhere to open up your pocket and household to more regulation and taxation.

I get what your points are.  Government over-regulation is a concern of mine as well.  This bill, not law, would be voluntary, and I just don't have a problem volunatarily doing it.  It's a choice.  Just like choosing to duck, goose, or pheasent hunting.  Those extra fees aren't voluntary if you choose to hunt those.  But, I'm sure you don't have a problem shelling out money for those extra fees.  You choose to drive, so you choose to pay those non voluntary fees associated with gas taxes.  I get your concern, but I for one don't see a problem with an option of using an extra line if you choose to pay an extra $10. 

[Auggie]

That is right. NON VOLUNTARY FEES. Unless I decide to revert to a wagon and a horse farting in my face. I do have a problem shelling out the fees to hunt waterfowl and pheasants. I have explained why quite clearly hear and in other posts. How long do you think it will take before they are not voluntary any more? Wake up. How long till you are paying for that second line on the ice? How long till you are paying to fish for each species of fish? If government regulation was a concern to you, you would not agree with this at all. It is like sleeping with the enemy.

[kingfisher1]

Those are just prices to pay to hunt the species that you want to.  If you don't want to pay the extra fees associated with waterfowl or pheasent hunting, then don't do it.  simple as that.  While I agree that there should be a limit to the fees and that more fees will drive people away, are you going to complain when you see those fees working for you in ways like setting land/waterways aside for habitat, planting natural growth for food, etc?  Will you complain when The DNR decides to add a few more Conservation Officers to help look for and stop poachers?  Or lets get rid of all these extra fees and let things slowly crumble away.

[Bobby Bass]

Ok the extra fee is going to cost 10.00 has anyone thought what it is going to cost in DNR man hours to enforce this? Pretty simple, if you see someone fishing on open water with two lines you have a violation, now if you see someone with two lines they will have to be checked. So how much time is spent by a CO in a stop and what could he be doing in that same time period? The newspaper story was talking about how the new fee would generate a million dollars, I think that and then some would be spent trying to enforce it. My thoughts are that it hurts the DNR right where they are hurting the most and that is getting CO's out in the field

[Mayfly]

Hey kingfisher1,

I want to give you the option of paying all my license fees this year. It is going to a good cause. Not only will I get to hunt and fish but you will be putting more of your money into the dnr and mn gov's pocket.

How about it??

[HD]

If there is a line forming, I'm in!

All my boats, snomobiles and wheeler tabs are due this year as well................... 



Hunter

[kingfisher1]

Hey kingfisher1,

I want to give you the option of paying all my license fees this year. It is going to a good cause. Not only will I get to hunt and fish but you will be putting more of your money into the dnr and mn gov's pocket.

How about it??

I imagine that you'd want me to pay all your property taxes, reimburse you for income taxes, and any other taxes, too?